Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/2007"Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2007 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. "file:HN:1Apps\W E BDATA11nte met\PlnAgend as120071mn05- 17 -07. htm Page 1 of 22 06/20/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren: Commissioner Hawkins was seated five minutes after the meeting had begun. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director aron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Principal Civil Engineer Patrick Alford, Senior Planner James Campbell, Senior Planner Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on May 11, 2007. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of May 3, 2007. ITEM NO. 1 Commissioner Hillgren noted the architect for the Environmental Nature Approved Center is LPA, not LPR. Motion was made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner McDaniel to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Absence: Hawkins ITEM NO. 2 SUBJECT: Rick Webster (PA2007 -049) PA2007 -049 110 Tustin Avenue Approved Request to allow Rolfs Wine to operate a specialty retail wine shop pursuant to Chapter 20.89 (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets). "file:HN:1Apps\W E BDATA11nte met\PlnAgend as120071mn05- 17 -07. htm Page 1 of 22 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 2 of 22 Bunim, Assistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff report. comment was opened. comment was closed. nissioner Peotter discussed an exhibit of sample conditions that Y distributed. In addition to these being added, he also suggested V the hours listed in condition 4 from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday tl day, and 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Lepo noted if this business was sold, staff did not want to see a liqi ket go in there. This has been addressed by limiting the hours ,ation with the understanding that a regular corner liquor market wo t hours late in the evening. missioner McDaniel noted that suggested condition 1 talks about liquor and number 8 requiring security cameras and all these r itions need to be agreed to by the applicant. missioner Hawkins noted the operator is currently at a ion: what are his hours now? Bunim answered they are the same as proposed in the staff report. )mmissioner Hawkins suggested there is no reason to provide hou xibility as these are the current hours and the operator does not envisior anges. On the suggested conditions, condition one should be minated. He noted he had circulated a new recital for the resolution itsel out the Police Department's report and suggested a new sub - finding 2b. e record that is presented does not support the current 2.b finding at all. oner Hillgren discussed the newly - proposed condition 3. H( d the age of an employee selling beer and wine under 21. there be someone at least 21 at all times in the store? Alford answered that the ABC has a requirement that is similar to tl there are establishments where alcohol is served by people under 21. Hillgren stated he is okay with the hours of operation as is. ck Webster, applicant, noted the newly proposed conditions refer to a uor store. His is a wine store that has to sell a little liquor as part of the siness as they do deliveries for corporate functions. A majority of their siness is wine; they do like to have liquor and would lose a fair amount of siness without that capability. He asked that conditions 1 and 8 not be ded and that the hours remain the same as those are the hours they ve used for the past 32 years. He added that there is someone over 21 ars of age at the establishment all the time. was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded b) ;loner Hawkins to adopt resolution approving Use Permit No. 2007 "file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007\mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 with the following changes: Add a new Recital: WHEREAS, the Police Department has e that Reporting District 26 has a lower concentration of ABC Iii than the surrounding Reporting Districts and is not in an area the number of crimes are 75% higher than all City Reporting C and has not reported any calls for service at the applicant's location; Add the new sub - finding 2b: The principal uses of the specialty wine store will not be detrimental to the site or to the comn based upon information received at the hearing and infom provided by the Police Department. Add following conditions of approval: Applicant shall post signage precluding consumption of beverages on site and precluding loitering; At least one employee on duty shall be at least 21 years of age; There will be no coin operated amusement devices or video on the premises; Applicant will secure the premises with appropriate security lightini, and employee scrutiny of the adjacent areas over which th applicant has control to preclude trash, graffiti or littering and an lighting under the control of the applicant shall be directed in such manner so as not to unreasonably interfere with the quiet enjoymer of neighbors. Applicant shall further provide adequate lighting above the entrance to the premises sufficient in strength to make visible th' identity and actions of all persons entering and exiting the premises; The applicant shall maintain free of litter all areas of the under which applicant has control; Any graffiti shall be painted over within 72 hours of discovery thereof Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None OBJECT: Advanced Real Estate Services (PA2005 -196) ITEM NO. 3 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place PA2005 -196 The application would allow the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartmen Recommended building and a single - family home and the construction of a 7- level, 9 -uni for approval by multiple - family residential condominium complex with subterranean parking City Council on a 1.4 acre site located bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. The existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan "file://N:\AppsNWEBDATA\Internet\PlnAgendas12007\mnO5-17-07.htm Page 3 of 22 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/1712007 Page 4 of 22 I Zoning Designations of a small portion of the site (584 square feet A be changed to be consistent with the larger portion of the site (fron )- family residential to multi - family residential). The application includes < tative tract map for the creation of 9 "airspace" condominium units fo ividual sale and. The Modification Permit application requests th< ;roachment of subterranean portions of the building within the front an( e yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Permi Aication relates to replacing lost units occupied by low or moderate ome households. No units meeting this criteria are known to exist and refore, no replacement of affordable housing is required. as Campbell, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report an rp of the project description. He noted the project has been change re- designed to pull the project up and away from the ocean which i :ficial to find the project consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. iges to the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been made and th< iment has been re- circulated for public review. The issue left fc rmination is the predominant line of existing development. Thi Ashes the line to which the project could be built as seaward of th< would be inconsistent with policy and represent a significar -onmental effect. He then noted the variety of methods to define th ominant line of development (PLOD) based upon definition containe n the Coastal Land Use Plan. ,nissioner Hawkins noted the definition of the predominant line lopment on page 5 -19 of the CLUP. We are dealing with >minant line of "existing" development. Is that phraseology a defir in the Local Coastal Plan? Campbell answered no, the definition is predominant line elopment, and the word "existing" comes from Policy 4.4.3 -8 and 4,6 He also noted that the definition in the CLUP contains an exam cating that the median distance of a block of homes from -esentative point or line might be the predominant line of exist Campbell went on to explain that staff's position on what t ominant line of existing development means has changed since t report was published. In the prior report, staff indicated that t lominant line of existing development is the maximum building envelo could be developed and the general policies to minimize alteration bluff or the protection of public views or the protection of the vist ity of the coast could lead to further limiting development within t lominant line of existing development — staff does not support tl ication of policy. Staff believes that the applicant would have the right I to the predominant line of existing development; however, t tification of the predominant line of existing development must be do Astent with the general resource protection policies. believes that the median distance, once determined, is the sta for analysis. In this application, staff used mean sea level as ion reference line for measurement. He went on to explain lation of the median distance for a block of homes on a bluff face " file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007 \mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 5 of 22 level of subjectivity involved in the analysis. I ommissioner Hawkins noted his concern with the methodology ) redominant line of existing development its potential inconsistency with the ntent of the more general policies. He asked how to resolve the question ulr. Campbell answered that once a candidate predominant line of existin( ievelopment is identified, it must be compared to the existing developmen )attern to see if it is consistent. If a potential line is not representative of the )lock of homes being analyzed, the method by which the line was identifies s flawed. If that flawed line was used and if development was sited ii accordance with the line (assuming the line allowed more developmer :han the existing development pattern), the development would not bi - onsistent with the general policies to minimize alteration of the bluff and b protect the scenic and visual qualities of the coast. You will need to look e all the various factors in identifying the predominant line of existin development. After consultation with the City Attorney, staff believes tha the applicant has the right to build to the predominant line of existin development given the specific nature of Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9. Hawkins asked if there is a conflict between the two policies when ;dominant line of existing development is identified that is representati, the existing development pattern and also conflicts with the more genes source protection policies. sistant City Attorney Harp added the primary way to look at the )dominant line of development is by first focusing on the definition of the )dominant line of development, which says it is the most commor xesentative distance from a specified group of structures to a specifies int or line. You are not bound by the examples given of median distance ien you determine the predominant line of development. Look at the uctures on either side in determining what the predominant line o velopment is. This is an independent analysis done in conjunction witt policies. Since there are various ways to determine the predominan e of development, you can take a liberal view towards it or you can take nservative view towards what the predominant line of development is. su are looking overall for a reasonableness of what the predominant lint development is because they have a right to develop up to tha Bdominant line of development. If you took the general policies an( iplied those and said that was the rule, then you would have to apply the cst conservative policy available and I don't think that is the intent e ese policies. You are looking for reasonableness in setting th edominant line of development based on the other structures. ck Julian, applicant, gave an overview of his project noting tl chitectural features, the building will not extend down to the water and v 30 1/2 feet above the water line; view corridor has been pulled back 1 e corner of Ocean and Carnation; large portion of the property is sine )ry height along Carnation to guarantee those views; majority of squa otage is underground and out of sight; endorsed by Coast Keepers; t ntours of the bluff are matched with heights ranging from 29 feet to at on level one of the building. Levels two and three have been pull ick 15 feet on unit 7 to match that contour of the bluff. He is committed is project. "file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007 \mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 6 of 22 ion Jeannette, architect on the project, noted: No variance on this project; Requesting two minor modifications to setbacks; Project conforms to the General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan; It is a lessening of density in the number of units on site from 15 to 9; Utilizing 26% of the site with 74% of the site left as open space; Project has a 1,700 square foot larger footprint than the existing building; Parking exceeds Code requirements and project area is at 76,000 square feet with most of it not visible; The project has been raised 18 inches with an elevation of 30.5; The MND has been re- circulated; Unit 7 was backed up from its promontory 15 feet, not 6 feet as mentioned in the staff report; This project will be LEED compliant, having to do with energy conservation, green architecture, net metering, water retention systems, materials used in project and landscape materials; Mr. Jeannette made a PowerPoint presentation identifying the site, Channel Reef Condominiums (2525 Ocean Blvd.) with parking structure, the McIntosh residence (2495 Ocean Blvd.) and the Sprague residence (101 Bayside Place) as well as what is on the project site presently. Public views from Carnation, Dahlia and by Channel Reef Condominiums are being preserved; Construction Management Plan - removing 31,000 cubic yards of dirt; parking plan will shuttle workers to site; timing of operation will not interfere with beach users; haul route reviewed and accepted in the MND. The haul route was reviewed and discussed. r. Campbell noted that the haul route suggested by the applicant was not :cessarily endorsed by staff. Traffic Engineer does not want to use Iris reet as it is very narrow with the left turns and multiple stop signs. Staff yes have concerns with that route. )mmissioner Hawkins noted that the Public Works Department will have e final authority on which haul route is used. Staff agreed and referred to ndition 104. r. Jeannette continued with his slide presentation and discussed where e building would be put along the coast line and how the setbacks are dablished. This was the same presentation as made at a previous eeting on February 22nd, 2007. He then noted that the Coastal )mmission had given their input on the homes that had been built on the iastal bluff as depicted in the slides. He reviewed the site and noted the itegorical exclusion portions. Exhibits depicting the Kerchoff Laboratory id Channel Reef Condominium construction were discussed. He then scussed the project and how it fits in with the surrounding residences. Dferencing an exhibit of a photograph of the bluff from the West, he noted Magenta line representing the limit line that might be established by The )astal Commission based on the lowest line of development. Another "file: //N:1 Apps1 WEBDATA1 InternetlP InAgendas120071mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 7 of 22 n line depicts the lowest portion of livable space from the Mclntc ence. They used the 30.5 elevation for the west side facing slog climbing up to the 59 foot elevation moving towards and onto ierly slope. Referring to the exhibits, he discussed the varic onships of the project on both the northerly and westerly sides. luded by asking the Commission to define the predominant line lopment as a single elevation. ier Hawkins asked about and received information on Exclusion zone and what is it's import and how it works. comment was opened. McCaffrey, President of the Board of Directors at Channel Ri imunity Association, representing the members noted their support project. He noted in their three -level building parking structure with dential units with two cars each plus service vehicles, there has ne, n a problem with a queue of cars waiting to get in. Additionally, th( three names listed on a petition that had been circulated with a Chan :f address and those names and do not appear on their telephone in their residents' directory. inda Edwards, read a letter from John Martin noting his land di nd construction plan concerns which was attached to the iformation distributed to the public and Commissioners. Martin read her letter of opposition to the project. This letter ;d to the packet of information distributed to the public lard Hunsaker noted his acceptance of the project. He noted t :ractors who work in tight spaces can work around these types es. He suggested conditioning the project as such. lichael Millikan noted his support of the project as it will be nprovement as the current development is an eyesore. This will be reat improvement with new landscaping and architectural plan. p Rosenblath read a letter from John and Kathleen McIntosh. The,. ct to the project and sent previous letters to the City and the applicant. letter is part of the administrative record. ud Rasner noted his support of the project noting the number of pai )ots, units, view corridors, tax base, underground utilities, shu' orkers to the site and the outreach done by the applicant and the City. Moore appeared in support of the project. ill Varon appeared in support of the project noting the public one by the applicant. Dawson appeared in support of the project noting the un cture of the proposed project and the development right of "file://N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120071mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 8 of 22 i Beek noted the line of development should be where the bluff used which is about ten feet behind (horizontal) where the development iosed. If that is done it would be out to the 50 -52 foot level on the bI ling to the adjacent northerly four properties which would, thereto it all the criteria. This project relates to the four adjacent properties north and is miscellaneous to the property on the westerly side. /n Beck noted her opposition to the project due to the size n. She noted a petition she had submitted that was signed by over • in opposition. She requested that the project be staked to all • to see the enormity of the project. This project is visible from m< ;. She asked the Commission to be responsible to the residents this project. Birgy noted his support of the project. n Michler noted his support of the project as it is aesthetically pleasi will be a vast improvement to what is there currently. rey Beck noted the Commission has to interpret the CLUP which is to >erve the existing bluff and bluff faces and this project does not do that. king at the proposed project, you can see how the project will come m the bluff face and the Commission should not give approval to it as project is clearly in conflict with the CLUP. The vertical line of elopment should also include the existing building which the architect's ;entation did not include. The project will extend further away from the f than the existing line of development as noted in the staff report. He ad that these be considered and deny this project. i Vallejo appeared in opposition referring to policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2, 1 -3 and read her letter that became part of the administrative record. lic comment was closed. irman Cole asked for clarification on specific Coastal Land Use (CLUP) -ies vs. general policies. 3tant City Attorney Harp stated it is our opinion that you have speci sions that deal with development of the bluff face on Carnation Aven those take precedence over general conditions that are contained r policies. They have the right to develop to the predominant line lopment, wherever you establish that to be, in accordance with tl ition of policies that are in place. The other policies that are me oral in nature should also be considered; however, where there is t conflict between the two, the more specific overrides the general. nissioner Eaton asked about Policy 4.4.3 -8 that prohibits developr A private development or public improvements provided in the pt is and permit such improvements only when no feasible altern< o and when the design is constructed to minimize alteration of face. This provision refers to public improvements specifically "file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007 \mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05117/2007 Page 9 of 22 :essarily to the private development, correct? He was answered, "yes" then asked if staff wants to refer to the 28 feet as the predominant line. r. Campbell answered there are two lines that could be looked at as this corner property with two bluff faces intersecting at the project site. The ay be a rational to develop one limit or predominant line on Carnation sil id a separate one on the other side. You could do it either way. loner Toerge noted his concerns as they relate to the Declaration (MND): Public view at the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation - it i, my contention that it is not the responsibility of this particula developer to make that view wider or bigger, but I also feel it is no approvable to allow that view corridor to be made smaller. Hi thanked the applicant for the proposed modifications tonight the respect that view; Air quality - proposed haul route is important to consider given magnitude of excavation and the amount of trucks circule through the area for the next few years, the public needs to see and be given an opportunity to review; He asked that the Construction Management Plan, Parking Plan haul route be brought back to the Planning Commission so the pu has the opportunity to see it. r. Campbell, referring to a map of Corona del Mar, depicted potential preferred haul routes. >cussion continued on truck staging, pollution, noise, not allowing trucks and requiring trucks to shut off their engines immediately :y come to a stop, and parking for workers' vehicles. issioner Toerge asked for a straw vote on a new condition that t fiction management plan and haul route be reviewed by the Planni ission prior to the issuance of a grading permit. issioner Hawkins noted the construction parking plans should all 'ed by the Public Works Department. nmissioner Hillgren asked about the process and what the be going through. rion Jeannette noted the haul route mentioned by staff is acceptable to tt ommission; we will just do it. The construction management plan is be be reviewed by Public Works and Traffic, which has been required. Tt Sul route we mentioned earlier was granted to a project adjacent to th te. He noted the initial phase of the project will involve the operation aterpillars, dump trucks, watering trucks, and street sweepers as tt (cavation begins. Later the shoring process will commence and then tt " file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA \Intemet\PlnAgendas \2007 \mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 10 of 22 ,undation will start. When the building is partially constructed, it will -commodate the smaller tradesmen's trucks in the proposed parking cility. This will probably be 12 to 16 months with excavation slated to take )out 3 months. ommissioner Toerge noted that this explanation is helpful and withdrew s request for a straw vote. He will be addressing further concerns on the inditions. Referencing the MND, he noted his concern with the string line consistencies on Ocean Boulevard as depicted on the exhibit. Ir. Campbell noted the language related to "stringlines" is in the prior draft the MND. That language has been excised from the report as it was no ear or accurate. hairman Cole asked about any concerns noted by EQAC needing to be idressed by the Commission. Ir. Lepo said there were none. t Commissioner Eaton's request, Mr. Campbell opined on a comment tter from the California Coastal Commission staff noting the comments ere conservative and reflect a lack of understanding of the complexity of e project and the bluff. It talks about the aesthetic impact related to tering the bluff to accommodate the project. The MND makes a inclusion that it is not a significant effect on the environment and they take different viewpoint on that issue. The letter indicated their view that the ialysis in the MND related to Policy 4.4.3 -8 fails to show that all feasible ternatives to the project were explained. It is our belief that this provision ily applies to public improvements and not to the private development. here was another policy question as to whether 4.4.3 -8 and 9 apply as oastal staff does not believe the project is on the coastal bluff at all. Staff ilieves it is on the coastal bluff and we have a letter from the geologist ipporting this belief. ommissioner Hawkins noted this project is on a bluff face for which 4.4.3 and 9 would apply. Staff agreed. ommissioner McDaniel noted this is one member of the Coastal ommission staff, not the Coastal Commission. Staff agreed. ommissioner Hawkins asked and received clarification about the lack of a range to the boat docks and improvements to storm -water run -off systems referred in the letter from Coastal Commission staff. r. Campbell also discussed public access and the various factors to >nsider pursuant to CLUP policy when reviewing a new project. The (isting staircase from the apartment building to the water and then to the (isting dock system is steep an in disrepair. Topography, safety and the vximity to residential uses were factors considered and given public ;cess nearby, staff felt that public access across the site is not required. itigated Negative Declaration (MND) items on page 51, the construction irking plan related to construction crew parking at an off -site location until "file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007\mn05- 17- 07.htm 06120/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 uch time that the parking garage proposed can accommodate parking i ite and the need to schedule grading to avoid summer months w iscussed. These components will be added as conditions and added hanged in the MND. 1r. Harp noted the MND will be re- circulated and a revised resolution w istributed recommending approval to the City Council of the project a (lows for this re- circulation during the time period between now and wh goes to the City Council. The reason for the re- circulation doesn't requ ew analysis. The issue stems from the basic premise that some of t inguage in the MND was not agreed to by the applicant at the time th ubmitted the project, e.g., the predominant line of development. We are greement with the applicant's counsel that it should be re- circulated. T omments regarding the construction crew parking and scheduling rading to avoid summer months could be included in the MND and i irculated. Discussion continued. Campbell referred to exhibits on pages 22 and 23 of the MND sh view areas of the Begonia Park. This discussion is contained .iment concluding that no significant impact would result to public i the park. meeting Council. r Eaton made reference to the revised resolution presented that includes a narrative that the applicant agrees to t line of existing development as ultimately determined by t :ommissioner Hawkins noted his concern with the contents and format ie various versions of the MND. These documents should be internal :ferential and built upon each other. Each successive document shou xplain the rationale for the solution to conflicts so that any decision makir ody could disagree with that point and then go back to the eariii ocument. We are creating an environmental record and I do not belie\ its record is a clear one. Continuing, he noted Mitigation IX -5 refers to tt redominant line of development and the project shall be revised such th ie principal building shall not be visible below 52 feet above mean se airman Cole then asked for discussion on the predominant line selopment. He noted his opinion that there are two lines: one on t sterly portion (Ocean Boulevard side) and one on the northerly portion site (Carnation Avenue). There had been a consensus of t mmission back in February on Ocean Boulevard westerly side as 29 fe nciding with the adjacent development. ;ommissioner Eaton noted he agrees with the now adjusted number 0.5 feet upon further surveys and this should now be the line for the we icing side of the bluff. He explained that this elevation is the elevation ie closest foundation and that the adjacent westerly development started entle transition up from the water's edge that is exhibited by the Chann ;eef Condominiums. ner Toerge noted the property is located on Carnation Ave., Page 11 of 22 "file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas \2007\mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 12 of 22 ►cean Boulevard. If it was located on Ocean Boulevard, it would have a eight restriction based upon the top of the curb. The adjacent garage had r be built into the bluff as it also had to be below the top of the curb. The ite is not comprised of two bluffs. He noted that the predominant line of xisting development should be based upon the homes along Carnatior venue and not the structures on Ocean Boulevard as those structures referencing the Vallejo Residence, Channel Reef and Kerchoff laboratory; ould not be built today as they would not be consistent with Codes of olicy. Referring to an exhibit showing existing development on the bluff, e discussed the proposed development extent also pointing out that this roject should not be given the ability to both go down the slope and above ie curb height as it is on Carnation rather than Ocean Boulevard. He oted a legal lot has to be given development rights. He supports staff ;commendation that this predominant line of development as it exists long Carnation be applied to this property, which is on Carnation and nol n Ocean. He noted the red line on the photographic exhibit that ;presents 50.7 feet above me an sea level and it respects the continuation f the predominant line of existing development as established on ;arnation Avenue. ;ommissioner Peotter indicated that the predominant line of the coal one is also reflected in the development along Bayside Place and t urple line on the photographic exhibit might be appropriate. He al idicated that within the Categorical exclusion zone, one could build to t iinimum 10 -foot setback and further expand the predominant line xisting development. He indicated his belief that the CLUP does r ffectively communicate its intent. ommissioner Toerge noted that the CLUP is a policy document not t pecific regulations. The Categorical Exclusion zone does not exclude t to from the coastal zone or its policies. The predominant line of existi evelopment is a setback line for structures located on the bluff face a iat the development on Bayside Place is not on the same landform. Th re not in a similar topographic setting nor are they on the same street. n example, one would not use the development on Breakers Drive etermine the vertical extent of development for the nearby lots on Oce oulevard as they are not in the same topographic setting. ommissioner Hillgren noted that the 30.5 foot elevation of the adjace - sidence (Macintosh Residence) is an appropriate line for developme A in looking at the development, including development further to t outheast, the predominant line is lower than that as it is built right to t ,ater's edge. hairman Cole noted is belief that there are two bluff faces (north a est). The north facing slope should have a much higher predominant Ii f existing development and the west facing slope is lower than 30.5 feet. Ir. Harp added that the applicant and staff had discussed the possibility ie predominant line below where their project is and the applicant h greed to deed restrict the property that they would not develop in that ar the predominant line was set lower than the project. immissioner McDaniel referenced the photographic exhibit noting that lief to use the development on either side to ensure that the pro ekes sense. We do have a comer where the bluff turns with to velopment to the east and higher development to the north and "file://N:\Apps\WEBDATAkintemet\PlnAgendas\2007\mnO5-17-07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/1712007 Page 13 of 22 should fit from either side. Campbell explained staffs method of calculations, median distances I the structures not included and those included in these calculations. noted the elevations of 59, 50.7, 42.3 on the north facing side.. ,sion Hawkins commented on the method to identify nant line of existing development using the median distance ment. indicated that the median distance is an example contained within tl iition of predominant line of development. It is a method to identify for analysis where it is then compared to the existing developme ,rn first to see if it meets other resource protection policies and then it pared to the proposed project. oner Hawkins asked why Bayside Place, Channel Reef and laboratory were excluded from the calculation of the me aff responded that Bayside Place was excluded as it was built in front bluff and was not on the bluff face. Today, staff was present ormation to suggest that 101 Bayside Place was constructed into the 1 the bluff, but staff believes Bayside Place not to be in the sat )ographic setting. Again, today staff was presented photograpl ormation of what the bluff looked like before Channel Reef w nstructed and staff now believes this development should be consider the identification of the predominant line of existing development. immissioner Hawkins commented that the use of the median distance example is problematic in that is could evolve into a standard. T rrent policy is to protect the bluff by limiting development to be within t ;dominant line of existing development and the protections contain hin Policy 4.4.3 -12 are built -in to the identification of the predominant Ii existing development. The trend with this bluff a lot lower than 50.3 fe ove MSL. �mmissioner Eaton commented that the west facing bluff 30.5 feet MSL propriate as it continues the transitional elevation change from the low ovations of the Macintosh residence to higher elevations to the north. I :nt on to explain that he felt that this was a unique site that the corn( m a lower PLOED, based on Ocean Boulevard development to a high OED, based on Carnation Avenue development. The median elevati, 50.7 is one value (the median) in a range of values; and that, with t or design modifications made by the applicant to pull in the Recreatil iom and Unit 7 footprint, and to cause a rising bluff face along tl rtherly elevation by blocking off some of the lower level windows th :re previously exposed, even up to an elevation of 59' at the northe< rner of the development (which is higher, even, than the st; :ommended PLOED on Carnation Avenue of 50.7'), that the project h; seeded, in his opinion, in establishing a transitional PLOED tl- tisfied the requirements of the City's CLUP between the 30.5 elevation east to the higher elevations on Carnation Avenue. " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATAI Internet lPlnAgendas120071mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/20/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 14 of 22 Campbell noted that with the Channel Reef condominium ded in staffs calculation, the median now becomes 49.4 feet irman Cole asked if preserved bluff areas above a poter lominant line of existing development (50.7 feet above MSL — the on the photograph) could be balanced against developed areas be line and be consistent with policy. Staff answered that it could tenable approach. nissioner Eaton agreed with this balancing approach and he it was a factor in his transitional predominant line of e opment approach. mmissioner Hillgren asked for clarification Commissioner icated that the transition he was thinking of is smoother than a p from 30.5 to 50.7 MSL. Commissioner Hillgren indicated his the green line (proposed project/bluff interface line) and also it t he was unsure of where the predominant line of existing deve uld be. ioner McDaniel noted the predominant line of exis lent does not have to be a straight line. He asked staff 1. Alford added that this project is the first major discretionary proje ming through with this issue and is a setting where the predominant Ii not easily applied because we are dealing with a corner point and mber of development patterns that are in different topographic settinc example, the development on Bayside Place, Channel Reef and irnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Applying the concept of t :dominant line is somewhat difficult in this situation. We recognized th orona del Mar in general and this area in particular was going to mewhat more difficult than the other areas of the City where i tablished the predominant line of development, around Upper Newp y, Cameo Shores and in Shorecliff, etc. It was decided that the best w handle that was on a project by project basis and to develop some sort idelines on which you could view them and take those it nsideration. It was also stated that no matter what methodology w ed to establish the predominant line of development, ultimately it is goi be the decision makers looking at an exhibit and deciding where that Ii appropriate. There is nothing that says it has to be a straight line ;re will be a certain level of subjectivity and judgment in applying rticularly in this complex topographic setting. nissioner McDaniel noted that for the City to have the best pro ole, it is within our discretion to make the line curve or whatever to make those two separate areas meet and make a nice project Alford noted that sometimes you have to ignore the mathematics :e a judgment call on how that line best fits all of the policies that er consideration. "file:HN:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120071mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/20/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 15 of 22 issioner McDaniel thanked Mr. Alford. mmissioner Peotter asked how the Commission would reference the the exhibit as the one that was approved. Harp answered that you could approve it with the elevations that are it plans and say that is the predominant line of development. If you wan pick something that is lower than that, you could set up the predominan of development that is lower and approve the project; if you wanted to .i could deed restrict the area in between as the applicant agreed to. mmissioner Hawkins noted the reason for the deed restriction is a bL line of development and so we would want to prohibit developm ween the approved line (project line) and the predominant line sting development. Harp answered it would also help to support the policies in that you a acting the coastal bluffs to the maximum amount feasible by having lominant line that is below that and the deed restriction would help act that portion of the bluff below the project and above the line. imissioner Hawkins noted his concern of approving this project with le bound predominant line of development as the City needs a specii and the applicant and general public need a specific line so everyboc ros where this thing is going. While I support bluff face protection, t see how the Local Coastal Plan as currently drafted and approvE ides such protection. :hairman Cole asked if there were any other questions or comments ;garding the predominant line of existing development. None were resented. :ommissioner Cole asked if there were any design concerns. ommissioner Eaton noted that this project is unusual and will be unique. he City does not dictate architecture and it is beyond our purview. .ommissioner Hawkins asked if the interim design policies effective April 1, 007 were applicable and he was answered no as that ordinance only pplied to single and two- family residential projects. hairman Cole noted this project is under the density that this site could uilt to and there is no variance, only a modification for an encroachm iat is subterranean. Campbell answered the General Plan and Coastal Land Use PI ies have a higher density range. This project is well within the ;ity ranges. The Zoning Code has more strict limit and allows imum 9 units, which is what we have before us in this project. T osed project is consistent with all regulatory documents in terms pity. The project complies with all development standards with 1 !ption of the encroachments for the front yard setback which is whc " file: / /N:\ AppsI WEBDATAI InternetlPlnAgendas120071mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 16 of 22 )terranean and the sideyard setback encroachments most of which :)terranean but there is a single story encroachment that is a small a the building. Staff feels the findings for the Modification Permit can missioner Eaton noted is support for the proposed n setbacks. nmissioner Eaton noted possible parking issues with the veh vator concept and queuing. He noted that the traffic analysis preps the applicant did not address the issue of vehicle access or potei ;wing. He stated he would be able to find this consistent with ;ulation Element and CLUP policies. He noted that the Conditic venants and Restrictions (CC and R's) have to say that the members uired to park in their garages and they cannot be used for of Harp suggested adding a condition that the CC and R's be recorded as to require the homeowners and /or association to maintain ierty and lifts in operation as well as the other conditions Ir. Campbell noted that conditions 26, 27 & 28 provide restrictions on se of parking but do not include these restrictions in the CC &Rs. :ommissioner Toerge noted General Plan Policy CE7.1.1 which require ew development provide adequate and convenient parking for residents, uests and visitors. Adequate parking is provided, but is it convenient? lot only for residents, but guests and visitors. Each unit is required to rovide 2 cars of parking for residents and 1/2 car per unit for guests; with ine units, the project has to provide 4 1/2 cars for parking for guests and ie Code requires rounding up, so the project is required to provide 5 cars f guest parking that is convenient. On the ground level there are three uest parking spaces and the other two are to be used through access to ie elevator. Further, with such large storage units in the basement, users ,ill be inclined to back into the vehicle elevators so that the rear of the ehicle will be oriented toward the storage side of the basement. A resident iat pulls a car or truck into the vehicle elevator in a forward manner and roceeds to the storage area will then be required to off -load their vehicle n the opposite side of the storage area, requiring that they maneuver iemselves and their storage items between the vehicle elevator wall and ie side of the vehicle. Practically speaking, the design will compel asement storage users to back into the elevators at street level where sere is no queuing area or other accommodation for such backing ianeuver. Of course, while the user is off- loading, the vehicle elevator will e tied up and not available for use by other residents or guests. Also, in very day use, given the time it will take for a resident to access the vehicl levator, lower their vehicle to the proper level, exit the elevator and ianeuver in tight quarters to their garage and repeat the same in reverse exit the garage, I believe the parking arrangement is not "convenient" as squired by General Plan Policy CE 7.1.1. To the contrary, I find the parking onfiguration to be "inconvenient" for residents, visitors and guests. "file:HN:\Npps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007\mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/1712007 Page 17 of 22 m Jeannette noted is opinion that people will not be able to drive a the lowest level as items to be taken to that level will be brought tt small carts or a golf card. He then explained the mechanism ration of the lifts adding that the two other guest parking spaces at o' ;Is might be for family members who are visiting those households ild be specifically granted access to those levels. ;loner Toerge noted his belief that the five guest spaces ntly located without having to use the elevators. He then noted about the large subterranean storage areas and the use of as being inconvenient. Jeannette answered unless you are keyed for access, you will not to do this. He then explained the use of a cart or dolly sportation, elevator use and the use of storage by the residents. mmissioner Hawkins indicated that there will be an increase in the street with the reduction in the width of the drive approach. continued on the placement and use of the guest parking.< Cole then asked for any changes or modifications to by the Planning Commission. loner McDaniel, noted that: Condition 8, regarding a performance bond on completion of and retaining walls should be require completion for the project. was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by ssioner Hillgren, to approve the project per staffs recommended on with Exhibit D as amended and including the following: iinant line of development - use the "blue" line on the elevation (23ft up to 42ft). ssioner Eaton noted this would require a deed restriction and ted; using the "green" line which transitions from 30.5' at the est corner of the project, to 59' at the northeast corner. was consensus to use the "green" line. The maker of the motion I and motion includes. minant line of development - the "green" line on the elevation exhibit. was a consensus. was consensus on the following conditions: Condition 103 - amend to add schedule grading to avoid the busy summer season and a portion of a nearby parking lot to be leased "file://N:\Apps\WEBDATA\Internet\PlnAgendas\2007\mnO5-17-07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/1712007 Page 18 of 22 for the use of the construction crew parking; Condition 4 - reflect the date of the newly- revised submitted plan (Exhibit Z); Condition 30 - Re -word as, "Idling of construction vehicles and equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained and shall be turned off immediately when not in use. The use of audible signals, horn honks, whistles, beeps, etc. during the hauling and construction process shall be prohibited subject to the maximum extent permitted by law." Condition 8 - Completion bond for the entire project. Jeannette brought up the issue of irrigation and stated that there arel iy conditions that they cannot do. He asked that staff work with them. Campbell noted the use of the word permanent and indicated that only porary irrigation may be used on the bluff face to re- establish the stings that would occur and staff will make those corrections to be sistent. re was consensus on the following conditions: Condition 11 - submit to the Planning Director, not Planning Commission; permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system where allowed by Code. Condition 26 - add, "The location of the generator be approved by the Planning Director and shall be sound attenuated. " Add new condition or amend condition 27- CC and R's be recorded to require that the Homeowner's Association maintain the property and lifts in operative condition, landscaping and other improvements in compliance with the conditions. The City Attorney's office shall approve the CC and R's. Harp noted that the City would not be enforcing the CC and R's but they Id give a private cause of action to a party to that contract. ner Hawkins asked that the CC and R's require residents to vehicles in their garage. Harp confirmed that could be added if the residents agree. Jeannette agreed to this and to condition that garages not be used aae rooms. McDaniel noted a lot of people have more than "file:HN:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet %PlnAgendas \2007\mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 19 of 22 ion continued. Peotter amended his motion as follows: Add Condition 104 - CC and R's to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The CC and R's shall include use of garage for cars and not storage, owners agree to park in their garage; maintain elevators in good working order; visitors' spaces shall not be used for continual parking. Add condition to prohibit the conversion of the common areas to exclusive residential use by residents in the future. Ar. Jeannette referring to Condition 8 suggested a phasing situatic ierformance bond to be reduced in 25% increments commensurate wii icremental building completion. Ar. Campbell noted Condition 8 as currently worded would include tt estoration of the excavations if the project doesn't go to completion, H :ould restore it back to its condition as opposed to building and finishing tl• )roject. Removing the improvements and filling the hole back in would be nuch smaller bond and that is what we thought was appropriate if tl )roject should fail in the middle. Or Jeannette suggested doing 100% of the project with release in 25' ncrements. Staff and Commission agreed. fim Paone, land use counsel for the applicant, noted the suggestion wou )e to bond for the entire construction of the shell and release that in 25 ncrements to completion of shell with a new bond for the interior work. Or. Jeannette defined the shell as being the parking structure, 0 anvelope, roofs, windows, etc. so that the concrete and systems are )lace. The finish work for the interior would be the cabinetry, bathroo 'fixtures, etc. t was agreed that Condition 8 shall refer to 100% of the shell cost ai - elease in 25% increments. 4t Commission inquiry, Mr. Jeannette, representing the applicant, agreed all the conditions and amendments as discussed. He noted that of condition related to the 5 -foot easement for a sewer line which is five fe away from the property and asked if that can be worked out with Pub Lepo noted they can administratively find conformity with ition. missioner Peotter noted the motion is the resolution that buted tonight with the modification on the Mitigated Nel oration to modify Mitigation Measure 15 -1 to include those two -ding grading to avoid summer season and the shuttling of constn ers, and: Condition 4 - reflect the date of the newly revised submitted (Exhibit Z). Condition 8 - add, shall refer to 100% of the shell cost and "file: / /N:1Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas \2007 \mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 release at 25% increment per the Building official. Condition 11 - submit to the Planning Director, not Planning Commission; permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system where allowed by Code. Condition 26 - add, "The location of the emergency generator approved by the Planning Director and shall be sou attenuated." Condition 30 - Re -word as, "Idling of construction vehicles and equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained and shall be turned off immediately when not in use. The use of audible signals, horn honks, whistles, beeps, etc. during the hauling and construction process shall be prohibited subject to the maximum extent permitted by law." Condition 103 - amend to add schedule grading to avoid the busy summer season. Add Condition 104 - CC and R's to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The CC and R's shall include use of garage for cars and not storage, owners agree to park in their garages; maintain elevators in good working order; residents shall not use visitors' spaces for continual parking. imissioner Toerge noted that the minor change to the project related to view corridor will eventually be a hugely significant change in the •e. He thanked the applicant for this. He noted he has a different ion on this project related to the predominant line of development and the architecture is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. The ing situation, while novel, does not meet the Code as it is not eenient. For these reasons, he stated he would not be in support of this ication. , Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Hillgren Toerge None BUSINESS City Council Follow -up Mr. Lepo noted that at the last meeting, the City Council took ad on updating the appraisal that is the basis for the Quimby Act, park in -lie fee, and it will go from $6,894.37 to $26,125. Repo rtfrom _Planning Co Development Committee Page 20 of 22 " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120071mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 mmissioner Hawkins reported that EDC heard a discussion on budget. This same presentation will be made at the upcoming S Session. General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Commissioner Eaton reported the issues of grade, height and flc area ratios were discussed. The Technical Advisory Commiti suggested possible ways to address those issues. We have referr those suggestions to staff and the consulting team for their review. Intensive Residential Occupancy Committee Commissioner Toerge noted there had been no meeting. Mr. added that there are proposed changes to group residential short-term lodging that will go to Council next week. at subsequent meeting Commissioner Hillgren asked about the golf course at the end John Wayne airport. Staff answered this is not in our sphere influence. Matters which a Planning_Commissio future..agenda for action and staff report Mr. Lepo noted that there had been a receive and file on an i requested by a Commissioner. There was no discussion or dec made. He then explained the problems and solutions that arose the owner of the project. Commissioner Hawkins asked could be discussed at a future the Project status. Project status if the Zoning Administrator's de( meeting. Updates will be given ..Mr. Lepo noted that the Albertson's parking permit procurement employees was lax. Code Enforcement is now involved as there other conditions not being honored as well. A full report will brought up at the next meeting. Requests for excused_.a_bsences None. Page 21 of 22 " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATAI Intemet \PlnAgendas120071mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/20/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 22 of 22 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION "file:HN:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007\mn05- 17- 07.htm 06/2012008